Who's afraid of a little global warming?

We had an earlier thread on global warming here. Now, just to complicate matters, a group of researchers is arguing that warmer global temperatures are actually a good thing.

"If you could vote for a change in climate, you would always want a warmer one," says Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London. "Cold is nearly always worse for everything - the economy, agriculture, disease, biodiversity".

Other scientists dispute these claims, and point to other evidence.

And that's exactly how science works -- you make a hypothesis, then you test it with an experiment or compare it to evidence to see if it stands up.

The problems is, both sides of the global warming debate have made some pretty outrageous statements -- which leaves us citizens in the middle not knowing who to believe. And that can be dangerous: if a group keeps making extreme claims that turn out to be wrong, who will believe them when they're right?

What do YOU think? Is the debate over global warming helpful, or confusing? What, if anything, should we be doing about it?

Your Comments, Thoughts, Questions, Ideas

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Global warming doesn't exist. Our Earth has been in a warming trend for millions of years. Also, some of the warming is caused by the increased size of cities. It is not caused by the increase of CO2.

posted on Fri, 07/15/2005 - 3:07pm
Gene's picture
Gene says:

I should probably start by stating I'm somewhat of a global warming skeptic -- perhaps the only one on the Science Museum staff. ;-) But at the Science Museum, we try to stick to the facts. And the facts are plain: global temperatures have been rising since about 1910, and have been going up particularly fast since about 1980. And levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been going up since about 1850. Since carbon dioxide is known to trap heat, it's easy to assume that it is causing the temperature to rise.

(The scientists at the Woods Hole Research Center do a good job of compiling all the evidence.)

Also, The Earth has not been warming for "millions of years." For the past two million years or so, we've been going in and out of Ice Ages, with warm periods interspersed with cold ones.

But that is one reason why some people are skeptical. (Here's another skeptical site.) Ice Ages come at pretty regular intervals, every 100,000 years. They line up pretty well with changes in the Earth's orbit. (You can learn more about how Earth's orbit creates Ice Ages in exhibits here at the Science Museum.) Since the last Ice Age ended only 15 or 20 thousand years ago, shouldn't the Earth still be warming up?

Then there's the fact that temperatures fluctuate normally, anyway. There was a Medieval Warming Period from about 760-1150, when temperatures were warmer than normal, and a "Little Ice Age" (same link) from 1450-1830 when temperatures were cooler. And now there's evidence that the Earth was also warmer during Roman times -- warm enough to melt all the glaciers in the Alps.

And, if you look at the charts linked above, you'll see that temperatures fluctuated, and even went down, between 1940 and 1980, while carbon dioxide continued to climb steadily. Clearly, there's more going on here than a simple cause-and-effect.

So, for all these reasons, some people are skeptical. Yes, the Earth is warming, but how much is really due to human activity? What will the effects be? And what, if anything, can be done about it?

And at that point we leave science and get into politics, which I really don't want to discuss! ;-)

posted on Sun, 07/17/2005 - 11:25pm
bryan kennedy's picture

Among the scientific community there is not in any way a significant disagreement about the facts of Global Warming. The media and authors like Michael Chriton (not a research scientist) mislead the public by citing small minority viewpoints and uncertainty about our enormously complex climate as evidence that global warming in a myth. Not true.

The scientific community (people with scientific degrees, who publish research findings in peer-reviewed journals) have come to a significant consensus that "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring" and that "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities." These quotes are from a report "Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change" (pdf download) by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences' and 10 other national science academies from around the globe.

Studying the earth's climate is one of the most complex undertakings of modern science. Many variables enter into any change in the global climate. And while the scientific study of our climate often leads to a greater understanding about its systems it also generates new questions and uncertainty about how our climate works. However, these questions and uncertainties do not prevent the scientific community from coming to a consensus that global warming is very real and is likely affected by human actions on this earth. To learn more about the complexity of these issues, read this great article, "Science of Global Warming : Consensus Versus Certainty in a Complex World", from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
bryan kennedy
Science Buzz Site Admin

posted on Mon, 07/18/2005 - 10:51am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

i agree. i am studing global warming in science class and i am willing to listen to people who completely are for global warming and say that it does exist and is bigger than we imagine IF they give me Adequate info, and listen to my side of looking at this info. i also realize that a fifteen year old should be more aware of these things, which is what i am trying to achieve by reviewing this site's updates daily.
if any body is willing to help me with my five page paper, that would really help. sorry about the no capitals thing. the shift key and the caps lock key need fixing. ;-0

posted on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 6:41pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

please help. i found some info, but the paper is due next week so....
keys still don't work

thank you!
if u would like to help, put paper on top of the page


posted on Fri, 04/04/2008 - 8:15am
Anonymous2's picture
Anonymous2 says:

Dear Anonymous.

If you're staying cities are to blame for the increase in the "warming trend", what is it about cities that accelerates this?
The amount of CO2 that is produced by the industrialization, factories, etc. in the cities.

Do big buildings make the earth warmer?

I'm basically just asking you to clarify your point.

Love, Anonymous2

posted on Tue, 05/08/2007 - 4:52pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

i agree there is no such thing as global warming.

posted on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 10:15am
bryan kennedy's picture

For a refreshing discussion on the science of our climate check out RealClimate.

RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.

bryan kennedy
Science Buzz Site Admin

posted on Mon, 07/18/2005 - 10:54am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

It's not true. One of them is a fraudulent autor of the hockey stick. Both are specialists of a virtual or fictional world of the models. Not the real one. With models we can prove everythings: warming, cooling, melting caps, and so on.

posted on Fri, 06/02/2006 - 1:14pm
Liza's picture
Liza says:

Most climate models are now predicting that, unless we make drastic reductions in emissions levels now, we have set a process in motion that will melt all of the Arctic summer sea ice by the end of this century.

Rising temperatures will also thaw permafrost, which will release long-trapped methane--a greenhouse gas--and further increase global warming.

And the ice cap on Greenland, should it melt, contains enough water to raise sea levels worldwide by more than 20 feet.

David Barber, an Arctic expert at the University of Manitoba, told The New York Times that,

"Skeptics who use the uncertainties to justify delaying...[actions that could reduce greenhouse gases]...forget that uncertainty cuts both ways, and things could be far worse than forecast."

Read the results of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.

posted on Tue, 10/25/2005 - 12:34pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Wouldn't it be wise to say that global warming was and is inevitable?

posted on Sat, 11/05/2005 - 3:35pm
Gene's picture
Gene says:

Here's a scientist who doesn't buy in to the consensus. Dr. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University, was interviewed on NPR lately. Among his statements:

Whether or not human beings can produce a global climate change is an important question. This question is not at all settled. It can only be settled by actual measurements, data. And the data are ambiguous. For example, the data show that the climate warmed between 1900 and 1940, long before humanity used much energy. But then the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975. Then it warmed again for a very short period of time, for about five years. But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming....

[S]ince we're using models to predict the future--and the only way you can predict the future is to use models--the important question is: Can these models be validated by observations? And the models very clearly show that the climate right now should be warming at about the rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.... But that's not what the observations show. So until the observations and the models agree, or until one or the other is resolved, it's very difficult for people--and for myself, of course--to believe in the predictive power of the current models.

Of course, many other scientists disagree. The way to settle the issue is to continue taking careful measurements, and see what the evidence says.

For a discussion on disgreeing scientists, go here.

posted on Wed, 11/30/2005 - 2:46pm
The Canadian National Newspaper's picture
The Canadian National Newspaper says:

Avoiding a Fate like Mars for Earth: Life on Planet in Imminent Danger

by Raymond Samuels
University of Toronto

Ignoring Global Warming risks precipitating a Global Pan-Famine/Starvation from Africa, right into Europe, the United States, and Canada, unless in can be stopped and reversed in a very timely manner. Such a milieu would occur with soaring temperatures, destoying the oceans, with corresponding record drought conditions in agricultural lands, threatening the food supply internationally.

There are apparently some people who think that the current "Greenhouse Effect" will simply lead to an "evolutionary" change in the global climate, so that climatic areas in the northern hemisphere like Canada, Scandinavia, Russia, Alaska in the U.S., and Antarctica in the southern hemisphere will become like one big tropical resort area like Tahiti, Cuba, or Jamaica. Soon everyone will be enjoying glorious sunshine, and sipping exotic tropical drinks in Nova Scotia, Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, or around the Arctic waters of Siberia, according to people with this apparent view. These people profess a dislike for the cold, and they therefore welcome any change that might eventually get rid of their abhored winter blaaaaahs.

Unfortunately for these people, such a view is not supported by critical scientific evidence, beyond "scientific infomercials" and propaganda pieces that have been sponsored by various well-financed Big Business interests. Indeed, it has been the job of the largely corporate owned mass-media in Canada, and elsewhere, to channel viewers, readers, and listeners into responses which will complement the elite pursuit of insatiable commercial profit. This corporate owned mass-media does not want to draw public attention to the dire fate which awaits the public, if 'the Economy' is not rejuvenated in a manner that minimizes social and environmental costs.

The large scale 'owners of capital' have structured the prevailing capitalistic economy to principally serve their interests in the pursuit of money, status, and power for themselves. Like heroine or "crack" cocaine drug addicts, 'capitalistocrats' have become so addicted to the pursuit of a self-absorbing materialistic lifestyle predicted on money, status, and power, they would much rather apparently destroy our planet, and all life along with it, than to change their ways of drug-like abuse. Indeed, the mass-media in the prevailing capitalistocratic systems of Canada, the United States, United Kingdom, continental Europe, and elsewhere, are no less corrupt than the politicians which they are supposedly "holding accountable".

The mass-media has apparently covered-up the fate that awaits humanity, and the rest of our planet, if there is not an immediate substantive response to the Global Warming threat beyond the relatively superficial responses associated with the extremely slow responses to fulfilling the relatively superficial Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, failure to redress Global Warming with great alacrity, will not mythically result in northern hemispheres being turned into extensions of "tropical paradises".

The cold air masses that hover over the Arctic and Antarctic climatic areas of the planet are absolutely vital to moderating the temperatures of planet Earth. Global Warming by the irresponsible activities of greed driven private enterprises under American led "global capitalism", are destroying these vital climatic areas at an alarming rates. As a human species, we have already witnessed deadly heat waves and humidity. The accompanying worsening cancer causing ultra violet (UV) rays due to rapid accompanying ozone depletion is already creating experiences which almost feel like a form of radiation poisoning. Further accompanying weather cataclysms including more devastating hurricanes like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in late Summer 2005, and other such ''weather events" are only a relatively small tip of the iceberg so-to-speak.

The "hellish" summer of 2005 internationally has poignantly showed relative to the comparatively milder Summer 2004, that changes due to the abusive activities by human beings on the planet can be sudden, and extremely drastic. The current quantuum advancing devastating destructive impacts of American-led "global capitalism" are threatening to precipitate a catastrophic global drought in vital agricultural areas internationally that the world has never ever seen; due to unending rising temperatures, that will make the traditional temperature characteristics of the tropics today (that have benefited from Arctic and Antarctic moderation) seem like comparative ice boxes. Worsening "hellish" summers will lead into hellish other parts of the year also, with the prospective disappearance of the Arctic and Antarctic climatic areas. The inevitable result of such allowed phenomenon will be an ensuing Global Famine that so far, the world has also never seen spreading from the United States and Canada, into Europe and the rest of the World.

The rising temperatures of the oceans would eventually completely destroy all vital air (oxygen) producing plankton. A global crisis in agricultural production would be further accompanied by the cascading rapid dying out of all species in the ocean. The oceans would become dead polluted waters (the Gulf of Mexico has already been basically destroyed, with other parts of the ocean following pursuit).

In such a milieu of Global Famine, the world would be taken over by various warring military camps threatening each other with nuclear annihilation, and privately-run "terrorist" organizations trying to forcibly acquire what little of the Earth is left, for the exclusive use of elites, criminal syndicates, and gangs, leaving "masses" to perish in a milieu of spiralling global starvation, and poverty in a climate of socio-economic chaos and societal upheaval. Indeed, the mass-media has hypocritically ignored the extent to which 'capitalism' is actually the root cause of growing apparent "terrorism" as more and more people are turning to violent political extremism, in the face of environmental destruction, related oppression, and overall declines in quality-of-living.

Having destroyed the air-producing ocean life, and rainforests under a greed driven ethos of capitalism, soon even the Global Air Supply would become threatened with the overall rapid decay of vital ecosystems. Global Warming promises the convert the whole Earth not into a tropical paradise, but rather into a giant coffin, where all life on the planet will miserably perish. The Earth will eventually become very similar to Mars sooner than you think, unless the whole economic system can rejuvenated from its self-destructive path of Global Warming and accompanying pollution including ozone depletion. The human race will simply become a footnote for other possible space exploring advanced species in the universe to study in their future scientific missions of archaeological discovery, unless humanity changes from its current overall destructive ways.

People in their communities can either choose to play Ninetendo games, and worry about various other materialistic lifestyle considerations in "blissful ignorance", in the image of the elites who prevail over self-destructive capitalistocracies, or alternatively, people can choose to rally their governments for vitally needed social change. 'Sober' members of the diverse public must either become actively engaged in redressing the shortcomings of the prevailing economic system, or face the dire consequences of their jaded attitudes. Members of the diverse public who are concerned about their immediate quality-of-survival cannot afford to be complacent. These members of the diverse public must use what little that remains of destroyed democratic systems (that have been taken-over by the substantive operation of 'capitalistocracy') to challenge corrupted government leaders.

Government leaders have allowed themselves to be seduced and "bought-out" by self-serving greed-driven interests, that operate against the vital affirmation of the quality-of-living interests of the diverse public that these leaders were supposedly elected to serve; and against the interests of quality-of-living seeking human beings internationally. So far, these government leaders have chosen to substantively ignore capitalistocractic activities that precipitate Global Warming, and accompanying pollution and worsening poverty which are being executed by "generous donors" to their political campaigns, that prop-up their political power. People must either turn away en masse, from the norms of the prevailing capitalism that has corrupted the integrity of democratic systems, or face certain Mars-like global self-destruction.


Raymond Samuels has a professional background as an academic lectuer, and is the author/co-author/editor of diverse books.

Recommended Books:

Capitalism is Not Democracy, Part I, ISBN: 1894934636

The Kyoto Protocol Is Not Enough!, Part I:

Replace Capitalistocracy including the GDP Index
Toward a New Political Economy of
Social Justice and Environmental Protection

by Raymond Samuels II, ed.. ISBN: 1894839978, 2005

The Kyoto Protocol Is Not Enough!, Part II:

Replace Capitalistocracy including the GDP Index
Toward a New Political Economy of
Social Justice and Environmental Protection

by Raymond Samuels II, ed., ISBN: 1894934342, 2005

internet site reference:


posted on Sat, 12/24/2005 - 9:33pm
Anonymous siiri's picture
Anonymous siiri says:

I think that global warming is bad and that it is why we are all having warm weather. I don't think that it would be funny to have warm weather but have the ozone deplete and have the animals die.That would be stupid.
(_____) @----->----


posted on Sun, 01/29/2006 - 1:55pm
science paper girl's picture
science paper girl says:

ok, i can see u don't believe in it. then look at a different site! here we are all (mostly) non-believers in GW. if u dont want to see it, then go to a different site!
i just think if u've got a problem with sites like this, don't go to it. if u want to make ur point heard, fine. but don't scold the rest of us for using the FREEDOM OF SPEECH


posted on Wed, 04/09/2008 - 4:14pm
Gene's picture
Gene says:

This site is open to everyone interested in discussing science. Civil comments from all perspectives are welcome. Freedom of speech does not shield you from others who may hold different points of view.

posted on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 3:48pm
Tom Riegel, P.E.'s picture
Tom Riegel, P.E. says:

As an engineer, I find the tone of this thread to be unacceptable in this forum. Shame on you.
"The "hellish" summer of 2005 ..."

This assumes the weather has changed due to "greedy humans". If this is the case, 2006, look out! The writer fails to comprehend the basic facts of population growth. 6 billion plus people on this planet now compared with the 700 million around 1700. The "fat cats" only make up 300 million, if we assume ALL of the US citizens are greedy, polluting consumers only interested in increasing the weight of their wallets. What about the other 5,700,000,000 folks? Don't they breathe, eat, and defecate as well?

The "hockey stick" rise in temperature coincides more closely with population than CO2. This is debateable, and uncertain sure. Just take the blinders off, when you get off your soapbox.

posted on Thu, 02/23/2006 - 3:48pm
Aleki's picture
Aleki says:

Here's a link to a graph that charts solar irradiance vs. earths near temperature variance... the two follow each other almost exactly. Let's see here... the sun heats up what happens to earth.... hmmmmmm.... The increased levels of co2 in the atmosphere could be due to increased solar activity. That's basic earth science right there. More solar activity equals more oceanic plant life which equals more co2. To me this poses a real cause and effect question. Is there more co2 because of us or because of increased solar activity?


posted on Mon, 08/07/2006 - 12:51am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Global warming is real! ITS HAPPENING

posted on Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:31am
Gene's picture
Gene says:

Nobody seriously questions that. The issues being debated now are:

How much of this warming is due to human activity, and how much is due to natural variation?

What will the effects of warming be in the future?

And -- if the warming is man-made, and if the effects are profoundly negative (two very big ifs) -- what, if anything, can we do about it?

posted on Mon, 10/30/2006 - 7:44am
ummm......'s picture
ummm...... says:

Well, im not doing this, like seriously......duh?! IM not running for president, IM not the govener, THERE the ones running our countrey, its THERE job to work on finding more fuel efficint things, not US!

posted on Tue, 10/31/2006 - 10:38am
Gene's picture
Gene says:

No, but you are responsible for your own actions.

And, as citizens and voters, we are responsible for our leaders. If they are not taking the actions we feel are appropriate, it's up to us to pressure them to do so, or vote them out.

(Personally, I prefer to see social change emerge from the people, rather than be imposed upon us from above.)

posted on Wed, 11/01/2006 - 8:11pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

How can we prevent global warming

posted on Tue, 10/31/2006 - 11:51am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Wouldnt the heat we distribute now as a result of technology (hundereds of millions of computers, factories, lighting, concrete, generators, vehicles, etc) contribute somewhat, no matter how small ?

There has been such a frenzy about global warming in the media lately, coming from the most inappropriate commentators (who are just regurgitating press releases) that im beginning to wonder if there is an agenda emerging.

posted on Sun, 12/10/2006 - 11:05am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

We're having a debate in my class and i have to argue on the position that global warming doesn't exist. Does anybody agree with that argument? and if so, why?

posted on Fri, 12/15/2006 - 8:13am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

There's no doubt that our planet alternates between hotter and cooler periods of time. I think the main issue at hand is how quickly these changes occur. There have been weirder and weirder weather patterns (a hurricane producing snow in December in Oregon??), coupled with an absolutely gigantic rise in CO2 emissions, as well as temperatures that don't quite match up with the time of the year.

On the political side of things, here's the problem. Those who champion "the green agenda" tend to be liberal, and in recent years if you are a liberal you are a liar and against what is good for America. Thus, if you argue that global warming does exist, it's because politicians have their hand in your pocket.

posted on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 5:26pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

And that was sarcasm on the last sentence, I don't actually believe that. Any thoughts?

posted on Mon, 12/18/2006 - 5:27pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

that is a lie

posted on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 10:30am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Myth: Carbon dioxide are very high.
Fact: No, levels have been over 18 times higher in previous years before factories and cars existed.
Myth: Humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the air extremely fast.
Fact: 96.5% of carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources. Humans are only responsible for 3.5%. Strangely, gasoline is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is only taxed at 5%, even though buildings emit twice as much CO2!
Myth: Reducing car use will save the planet.
Fact: Taking every single car in the world off of the highway wouldn’t do anything to help the environment. Cars only amount for 0.6% of carbon dioxide emission. Anyway, carbon dioxide doesn’t heat the earth up or cause global warming. The sun is responsible for all heating.

posted on Fri, 04/06/2007 - 12:39pm
Don X's picture
Don X says:

Global warming cannot be denied. It is a huge problem that we need to address. Global warming will melt the world's glaciers (see Mt. Kilimonjaro, the Ross Ice Shelf, Glacier Nat'l Park, the North Pole, just to name a few). It will also submerge most of the world's costal cities, decrease landmasses, cause wildly hot and cold temperatures, shut off the North Atlantic current, chill Europe, cause massive crop failures and drought, and kill off most of the world's wild life. Evidence for this is everywhere. You just need to analyze the data. Analysis of the last 650 thousand years of ice samples from the south pole show warming, cooling, warming, cooling, and where our time is, the CO2 levels shoot off the chart. Population explosions, the destruction of forest, the growth of cities, more pollution, China, industrializing nations, and global warming naysayers cause levels to rapidly increase, and millions of data sources will point to this conclusion too. People who say otherwise usually don't believe it, or don't look at enough data. Also, just imagine our world like Venus, which does have really high CO2 levels. It is even hotter than Mercury all the time. What can we do to stop GW? Simple. Decrease emmissions, regulate pollution, find alternative transport (gas turbine powered cars can run on anything flammable), fix our problems in general and work together to fix what we have broken.

posted on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 7:26pm
Gene's picture
Gene says:

As Yogi Berra says, it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

All the things you cite have been mentioned as possible (not definite) outcomes of global warming. And they tend to be at the extreme end of the range of potential outcomes. Every 5 years, the UN releases a new round of climate predictions. And every time, they get less and less dire.

You're right -- climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands -- actually billions -- of years. Many of the swings have been far more extreme than what we're seeing now. This tells us two things: 1) whatever impact humans may be having on the climate, nature can and has had a much greater impact; and 2) life goes on. Ice Ages didn't wipe out life; total deglaciation didn't wipe out life.

CO2 levels are high. Historically, CO2 levels increase after a period of global warming. The Earth has been warming since the 1890s; the rise in CO2 we are now seeing may be an echo of that.

You are absolutely correct -- we must pollute less, we must use our natural resources wisely. But gloom-and-doom pronouncements actually hurt the cause. First, some people get so discouraged they give up hope. Second, the world has a nasty habit of not coming to an end. When we all survive Y2K, or Global Cooling, or the Population Bomb, or any of the dozen other apocalypses I've lived through without a blink, the doomsayers lose their credibility. (A lot of scientists, while convinced that global warming is a serious problem, believe that Al Gore and other hypesters are actually hurting our chances of addressing the problem.)

posted on Thu, 05/10/2007 - 12:10pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a problem or that humans are its cause. Even if current predictions of warming are correct, delaying drastic government actions by up to 25 years will make little difference in global temperature 100 years from now. Proposed treaty restrictions would do little environmental good and great economic harm. By contrast, putting off action until we have more evidence of human-caused global warming and better technology to mitigate it is both environmentally and economically sound.

posted on Sun, 06/10/2007 - 9:10pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

To Follow up on my other comment,
About the polar ice cap melting?
Well, yes it is, and it has been for about a million years or so. We are at the end of an ice age in which ice covered much of North America and Northern Europe. One environmentalist, Al Gore, is panicking over losing the Glacier National Park in Montana because of the melting.
One hates to tell him that we’ve already lost the glacier covering the whole country.

Also, Scientific Research through the u.s. government satellites and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - about .037 degrees celsius.

posted on Mon, 06/11/2007 - 6:02pm
Dude's picture
Dude says:

Dear Mr. Don X,

Everything you stated about global warming is from the either the book or DVD of An Inconvient Truth by Al Gore. There is no actual fact behind anything that Gore states. The scientist that he refer to are the ones who pull ideas out of the nothingness in order to get their ideas into the public faster than their competition, which happens to be the experts who are completley dedicated to the subject of global warming. Studies at the IPCC are actually bereft of an solid fact that global warming is a problem. Any other ideas have no concrete backround, they all end up being speculation

posted on Mon, 06/11/2007 - 6:13pm
msliberty's picture
msliberty says:

IF the Hollywood scientists were really concerned about 'carbon' over California, they
would be campaigning equally for more "carbon-free" nuclear power plants, instead
of dirty coal/gas fired power plants. We already use 24% nuclear power, otherwise we'd
be having blackouts.
Also, IF they were sincere, why do they just want to punish Californians, but let
China freely pollute with Kyoto ? The jet-stream dumps their pollution on us in just
5 days...it's not my Chevy causing that carbon pollution !

posted on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 12:07am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

The Earth is flat

posted on Mon, 10/08/2007 - 2:41pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Tell me one thing: How/s ignorance going for you? you might want to take your blinders off before you fall off your soapbox!

posted on Wed, 10/17/2007 - 11:38am
Gene's picture
Gene says:

We're looking at all sides of the issue here, which is rather the opposite of ignorance.

posted on Thu, 10/18/2007 - 8:11am
Ben's picture
Ben says:

There are some main factors in the warming and cooling of the Earth.
The eccentricity of Earth's orbit.
The tilt of Earth's axis.
Volcanic Action.
Solar Activity
Etc. Etc.

I read an article that said that there is a volcanic hotspot over Antarctica. I also read that there is a warm current of water flowing around Antarctica. So when someone asks why Antarctican ice is melting, we automatically say, "GLOBAL WARMING!"
A volcano has not gone off since 1980. Volcanoes often block insolation, cooling the Earth slightly. The eccentricity of Earth's orbit is so close to circular, that we receive so much insolation constantly the whole year. The tilt of Earth's axis is tilted so that a lot insolation hits the ice caps; for 6 months straight.
Global Warming is all propaganda. We should be warming up anyway, considering that we have just left the little ice age.
The Earth's temperature is constantly changing anyway, so who cares that it is a fraction of a degree warmer?
Lastly, the oceans are heavily polluted. When there is a lot of stuff in water, it freezes at a lower temperature. When there is too much salt in the ocean, the ice continues freezing, but it melts much more.

posted on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 6:14pm
HELP I HAVE AN EXAM COMING  from Sarah's picture

OK, I need help. I have a huge exam coming up, and i have to write a TEN PAGE PAPER FOR THIS! I am really open to both sides of the issue, as long as you give me the pros and cons and some scientific proof. thank you so much! I'll check every day, but it seems like every other site i've checked seemed like they were trying to persuade people to their way of thinking and i don't respect that.

posted on Mon, 03/31/2008 - 6:51pm
Gene's picture
Gene says:

Sorry -- no one here is going to do your homework for you. ;-) But, if you enter "global warming" or "climate change" into our Search bar, you'll find lots of posts, many of which have long comment threads. All of the posts, and many of the comments, have links to or quotes from articles. Certainly, there is no shortage of information out there. But, you are correct, much of it is presented by people trying to persuade. They present facts that support their position, and ignore facts that don't. Your best bet is to read as widely as possible.

Good luck!

posted on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 10:53am
Kelsey's picture
Kelsey says:

All of these opinions are really, really interesting:
However, I'm inclined to agree with the people that say that global warming doesn't exist. I'm actually doing a paper on that very subject right now for my English end-of-the-year project, and this helped a lot--I think that I might use quotes from a couple of posts, if my teacher will allow it.
I would stay and argue a few points, but I'm on a school computer and I'm not so sure that I'm allowed to be on a forum. >.>

Anyway, thanks so much! (:

posted on Tue, 04/29/2008 - 7:11am
bryan kennedy's picture

Hey Kelsey thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'd be curious learning what key elements of the debate make you think global warming doesn't exist. It's obvious you've given this some considered thought.

posted on Tue, 04/29/2008 - 3:31pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

i agree

posted on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 12:01pm
Kelsey's picture
Kelsey says:

(You're welcome!)
When I first came to this site, I was actually pretty opinionated when it came to this topic, but I didn't really have any evidence to bolster my claim that it doesn't exist. A lot of these posters included facts and figures; I learned a few things to spout whenever someone asks me what my opinion is on global warming. (;
(Just an interesting sidenote: Michael Crichton's State of Fear actually has a bibliography in the back; it's a fiction book, but based on a lot of nonfiction. He did a lot of research before writing it.)

posted on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 7:09am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Just because State of Fear has a bibliography and the author may have done research before writing it does not make it fact. It is fiction. Fiction is written to entertain, not to present facts. Therefore, just because it has a bibliography in the back does not mean that the author did any research. Michael Crichton is a (fiction)writer, not a scientist.

posted on Wed, 04/30/2008 - 8:58pm
Gene's picture
Gene says:

The Day After Tomorrow is also fiction. Some might say the same for An Inconvenient Truth. ;-)

posted on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 11:44am
Kelsey's picture
Kelsey says:

Well, why in the world would a work of fiction have a bibliography in the back if it weren't for a purpose? That doesn't quite make sense to me. Also, he has notes in the back as to his opinion on the research that he did.
Therefore, he had to have done at least some research, don't you think? Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a compelling read.

posted on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 8:51am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

I think State of Fear's value lies in the illustration of challenging a standing paradigm. Not much else.

Guy also probably did a lot of research for Jurassic Park, but...

posted on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 8:21am
Neutral's picture
Neutral says:

i also agree. i mean, it's gonna be 100years before we all drown. 100 YEARS!! that a long time!

posted on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 1:01pm
Gene's picture
Gene says:

Actually, many scientists reject the various "doomsday" scenarios. While a change in global climate will of course have an impact, the likelihood of universal flooding or other catastrophes is vanishingly small.

posted on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 8:32pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

I'm 12 years old and whole-heartidly believe that global warming DOESN'T EXIST!!! All my friends think I'm crazy but I have facts, the Earth's climate is always changing and we've been in an small ice age so the Earth should be warming! I also don't think teachers should teach about global warming in schools since it isn't scienticly proven. That always upsets me.

posted on Mon, 04/13/2009 - 2:54pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <h3> <h4> <em> <i> <strong> <b> <span> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote> <object> <embed> <param> <sub> <sup>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may embed videos from the following providers vimeo, youtube. Just add the video URL to your textarea in the place where you would like the video to appear, i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw0jmvdh.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options